[2024] UKUT 10 (AAC)

Although the claimant was acting in person, he had the benefit of a submission written on his behalf by Mr Glyn Tucker of the Royal British Legion, which was before me at the hearing. The claimant in essence submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering Article 52 and not Article 56. Under Article 56 the Department for Work and Pensions determined whether there had been any duplication and abated awards of social security benefits accordingly. Where that was not done because, for example, war pension was awarded for a past period, the Secretary of State for Defence (in the form of Veterans UK) could abate the award, but only to the extent that it exceeded the amount which would otherwise have been paid. In the present case there would be no abatement in respect of the UnSupp because the Department for Work and Pensions had determined that it did not overlap with UC. The question then arose whether Article 56 provided the only route to the abatement of awards of social security benefits. A similar question arose in relation to the recovery of overpayments of social security benefits in the attached case of CPAG v SSWP [2010] UKSC 54 regarding s.71 of the Social Security Benefits Act 1992. Could recovery be made under the common law if it could not be under s.71? The Supreme Court confirmed that it could not be because s.71 provided an exclusive code for recovery. As Lord Dyson SCJ stated in paragraph 35 “the co-existence of two systems, overlapping but varying in matters of detail … would be a recipe for chaos”. It could not have been intended by Parliament that Veterans UK could revisit recovery under Article 52 where Article 56, specifically applying to social security benefits, did not allow it.